Subject: [Isis-wg] RE: draft-ietf-isis-3way-04.txt

From: Les Ginsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:31:29 -0800

I believe this revision does a fine job of resolving the issues that were
raised recently.

I have one small, but significant issue with the current text:

        If the new action is "Up", an adjacencyThreeWayStateChange(Up)
        event is generated.

The use of "adjacencyThreeWayStateChange(Up)" event should be changed to
"adjacencyStateChange(Up)" event. 

While there are differences between the three way adjacency states and the
adjacency states defined in 10589, there should be no ambiguity in the
adjacency state change events (Up/Down). "Up" means a transition has
occurred which allows the neighbor to be advertised in the local LSPs.
"Down" means a transition has occurred which requires the neighbor to be
removed from the local LSPs. Whether these events occur with or without the
use of the 3 way handshake has no bearing. There is no need to define an
event specific to three way state and it is in fact invalid to do so.

   Les
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg